linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net 0/5] rxrpc: Miscellaneous fixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240507194447.20bcfb60@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 19:44:47 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>, "David
 S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo
 Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/5] rxrpc: Miscellaneous fixes

On Fri,  3 May 2024 16:07:38 +0100 David Howells wrote:
> Here some miscellaneous fixes for AF_RXRPC:
> 
>  (1) Fix the congestion control algorithm to start cwnd at 4 and to not cut
>      ssthresh when the peer cuts its rwind size.
> 
>  (2) Only transmit a single ACK for all the DATA packets glued together
>      into a jumbo packet to reduce the number of ACKs being generated.
> 
>  (3) Clean up the generation of flags in the protocol header when creating
>      a packet for transmission.  This means we don't carry the old
>      REQUEST-ACK bit around from previous transmissions, will make it
>      easier to fix the MORE-PACKETS flag and make it easier to do jumbo
>      packet assembly in future.
> 
>  (4) Fix how the MORE-PACKETS flag is driven.  We shouldn't be setting it
>      in sendmsg() as the packet is then queued and the bit is left in that
>      state, no matter how long it takes us to transmit the packet - and
>      will still be in that state if the packet is retransmitted.
> 
>  (5) Request an ACK on an impending transmission stall due to the app layer
>      not feeding us new data fast enough.  If we don't request an ACK, we
>      may have to hold on to the packet buffers for a significant amount of
>      time until the receiver gets bored and sends us an ACK anyway.

Looks like these got marked as Rejected in patchwork.
I think either because lore is confused and attaches an exchange with
DaveM from 2022 to them (?) or because I mentioned to DaveM that I'm
not sure these are fixes. So let me ask - on a scale of 1 to 10, how
convinced are you that these should go to Linus this week rather than
being categorized as general improvements and go during the merge
window (without the Fixes tags)?